Low Bore Axis--how important is it?

[JHC]

I think bore axis is a factor in how the guns handle. I think it's a bigger factor in .40 and .45 than it is in 9mm. I think the shooter's stature, mass, girth etc are a factor. Grip and forearm strength is a factor but "a good big man will always beat a good little man" applies to some degree here on average. I'm on the lighter/littler end of the spectrum (165-170 lbs).

I find higher bore axis pistols to be noticeably harder to track at speed than lower bore axis and my opinion has not changed across the decades nor recent years of annual volume exceeding 12K rounds/year. However I think it's more of a factor of tracking the sights than managing the gun back on target. I don't like tracking the bouncing sight any more than I need to. I found the Sig P220 to be ridiculous in this respect; but not bad with a P226. I thought the P30 quite easy to track. Again, 9mm is just not much of a recoiling round.

[jslaker]

I found the Sig P220 to be ridiculous in this respect; but not bad with a P226. I thought the P30 quite easy to track. Again, 9mm is just not much of a recoiling round.

The 226 is one of the easiest guns for me to track simply because it's so heavy for the caliber.

I'm actually somewhat surprised the axis on the XD series is as low as it is, as it's by far the snappiest firing of service size pistols I've fired. Goes to show there's more to that than simple bore height. I'm also surprised that the 1911 is as relatively high given its reputation for a fairly low bore axis.

[ToddG]

Add me to the crowd that says it doesn't make a big difference. This past Saturday I shot a friend's P30 and the first thought I had when I picked it up was, "Wow, I forgot how high the bore axis is!" But it didn't actually affect my shooting at all.

As the others have said, theory is fine and in theory the lower axis should be better. But in practice there are so many other factors that completely overwhelm "bore axis" that I now see it more as a mantra of folks who don't really know what they're talking about. Someone who shoots a low bore axis gun well and has little experience with a high bore axis gun shoots the high bore axis gun worse and immediately believes the marketing department, it must be the bore axis! Actually, it's that one gun is more familiar, fits you better, is sprung better, has better sights, has a better trigger, or who knows how many other things that add up to meaningful performance differences and you're just convinced it's "bore axis" because it's what you see when you compare the two guns side by side. Correlation is not causation in this case.

[jslaker]

I'd imagine that modern thumbs-forward grips play a role in minimizing the importance of bore axis, too. Using an old, thumbs-locked revolver style grip is going to leave a lot of the gun above your hands, along with pushing the gun's perceived pivot point back. With a thumbs-forward grip, the top of my hand is riding 1/4 to 1/2" below the bore line even on guns that have a "high" bore axis.

[Odin Bravo One]

Add me to the "Doesn't matter" crowd. I shoot a 226 almost exclusively and shoot it marginally better than other pistols with much lower bore lines.

It's the wizard, not the wand.

[ExMachina]

Someone who shoots a low bore axis gun well and has little experience with a high bore axis gun shoots the high bore axis gun worse and immediately believes the marketing department, it must be the bore axis! Actually, it's that one gun is more familiar, fits you better, is sprung better, has better sights, has a better trigger, or who knows how many other things that add up to meaningful performance differences and you're just convinced it's "bore axis" because it's what you see when you compare the two guns side by side. Correlation is not causation in this case.

I would agree if this were amended to say "Correlation is not necessarily causation in this case". Certainly bore axis must be important to some degree. For example, the AR15 was designed specifically so that the bore was in line with the top of the butt stock, and certainly you can get more muzzle rise out of the AR by simply raising the top of the stock to rest above your shoulder. But im in general agreement that different guns and different cartridges and different shooters are going to go a long way in deciding whether or not a low/high bore axis is going to be of significant consequence.

[Comedian]

It has much more to do with the shooter than the pistol. Work on your grip strength and technique and the differences will even out for you. I'll admit that a gun with a higher bore axis is less forgiving of a weak grip than one with a lower bore axis, but even SHO or WHO I have plenty of control over my SIG.

Here's a vid of me shooting my P226ST with factory 9mm 124gr Federal American Eagle ammo. The fact that it's a stainless frame really doesn't make all that much of a difference, I can shoot my alloy frame gun the exact same way.



I can't see all that much muzzle flip. Look for videos of Ben Stoeger shooting, he's much better than I am and shoots a Beretta, another pistol with a high bore axis. I'm sure if he felt that that slowed him down, he'd jump platforms, considering his lack of sponsorship and his substantial dedication towards improvement.

My grip strength is good from weightlifting since I'm 14. My Sig P226 in 9mm is not hard to control, but my G19 will always be faster, getting back on target, than the Sig. That will not change if i get stronger or weaker, or if my technique improves. Its a matter of physics.

[JHC]

Certainly bore axis must be important to some degree.

Grips, sprungness, etc is all great and what engineering is all about. But there is simple physics and leverage involved too which must be overcome. It may be too small of a factor to base a gun pick over but being an absolute zero-factor? Probably not. And again, probably less factor for a thick wristed 220 pounder than for a small boned 145 pounder.

[TCinVA]

You know, the bore axis thing annoys the living piss out of me. I can't seem to go anywhere without hearing some dude blather on and on about it and insist that he's "faster" with a low bore axis pistol as opposed to a high bore axis pistol. I propose a new universal internet forum law [NOTE: This is humor, not a real rule for PF.com] when discussing bore axis:

Before you can use the term "bore axis" in an argument about why X handgun is better than Y, you must have a record of your performance on a number of standardized drills performed over at least a two year period using a high and low bore axis handgun so you can tally a useful average of your performance with both weapons that is presented to the reader so that he/she can decide whether or not that .02 of a second difference you might squeak out with such an effort really matters in their consideration.

...and to save time, Robb Leatham and Ernie Langdon have both won USPSA production titles using handguns with a higher bore axis...and most limited and open class shooters seem to prefer handguns that have a higher bore axis, especially if they come with a lot of bullets and very light triggers. So it seems that even amongst the most elite ranks of handgunning where you may actually be able to find people with sufficient skill that every other possible variable impacting performance can be eliminated, nobody really gives bore axis much thought. I mean, really...when was the last time some of you competition shooters were on the range and heard the grand masters talking about bore axis? When was the last time somebody showed up to a clinic with Robb Leatham and was told "What you need is a pistol with a lower bore axis!"

The amount of electronic ink spilled on the internet about the topic is inversely proportional to the practical difference it makes in the results that Mr. Average Pistol Buyer will get out of a purchase...which at this point must mean that if it was quantified on a pie chart it would share the same sized slice as the number of people out of 1,000 who would celebrate a half billion dollar lotto win by mutilating their own genitals with a grapefruit spoon. In my opinion, this is yet another example of whatever Sith master Glock hired in their marketing department early on telling the gun world that these aren't the droids they're looking for.

[JHC]

Two years????? Crimony.



http://pistol-training.com/articles/...-larry-vickers

Where LAV says:

"In the grip beavertail tang area I rounded it to show the Germans this is what we want, we want to be able to get a higher grip."

and also:

"My first impression — and this is coming from a 1911 user mindset — the high bore line, the first thing you notice is muzzle flip. We knew that was going to be the case because it was a case with the USP. On the other hand, and Todd you’ve shot it enough to know, it’s a matter of technique. It’s how you grip and manage the gun. The people who complain about the muzzle flip I think are people who over-generalize because the truth of the matter as you’ve proven, Todd, it isn’t a big deal if you know how to drive the gun."

So there we have it. LAV and Hack designed the gun trying to get high on the grip to mitigate high bore axis, the first thing you notice is muzzle flip; but if you know how to drive the HK45 or any pistol I assume, it's not a big deal. Which is not the same as it not being A factor.

So the answer to the OP is what?